A bipartisan group of senators introduced a new bill to make it easier to authenticate and detect artificial intelligence-generated content and protect journalists and artists from having their work gobbled up by AI models without their permission.

The Content Origin Protection and Integrity from Edited and Deepfaked Media Act (COPIED Act) would direct the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to create standards and guidelines that help prove the origin of content and detect synthetic content, like through watermarking. It also directs the agency to create security measures to prevent tampering and requires AI tools for creative or journalistic content to let users attach information about their origin and prohibit that information from being removed. Under the bill, such content also could not be used to train AI models.

Content owners, including broadcasters, artists, and newspapers, could sue companies they believe used their materials without permission or tampered with authentication markers. State attorneys general and the Federal Trade Commission could also enforce the bill, which its backers say prohibits anyone from “removing, disabling, or tampering with content provenance information” outside of an exception for some security research purposes.

(A copy of the bill is in he article, here is the important part imo:

Prohibits the use of “covered content” (digital representations of copyrighted works) with content provenance to either train an AI- /algorithm-based system or create synthetic content without the express, informed consent and adherence to the terms of use of such content, including compensation)

  • rekorse@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    1 month ago

    Just because intellectual property laws currently can be exploited doesnt mean there is no place for it at all.

    • e$tGyr#J2pqM8v@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 month ago

      That’s an opinion you can have, but I can just as well hold mine, which is that restricting any form of copying is unnatural and harmful to society.

        • e$tGyr#J2pqM8v@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          That’s right. They can put their art up for sale, but if someone wants to take a free copy nothing should be able to stop them.

              • rekorse@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 month ago

                That would lead to most art being produced by people who are wealthy enough to afford to produce it for free, wouldn’t it?

                What incentive would a working person have to work on becoming an artist? Its not like artists are decided at birth or something.